You can be good without God in that you can define 'good' according to your personal preference. This is, of course, nothing but thoughtless mean-spirited hyperbole. The idea that the moral evaluations of an atheist are based, not on deep moral values but are just 'personal preference' is an arrogant attempt to denigrate. Marianno implies that profoundly important moral values have, for the atheist, no more impotance than, say a preference for Coke over Pepsi. This is just a dispicable slur. Countering this type of bigoted sentiment (which is, sad to say, rampant in the religious community) is one of the fundamental motivations for the ad campaign.
jdhuey,What a fascinating comment.You quote me but then you make it clear that what is despicable is your fallacious inference and not my implication.You are the one who stated, “profoundly important moral values have, for the atheist, no more impotance than, say a preference for Coke over Pepsi” not me.However, at the bottom of it atheist can ponder and all that they want and come to very erudite conclusion indeed and yet these are still personal preferences and hold no universal weight whatsoever.Atheism offers no ultimate ethics nor justice what better reason to reject it?aDios,Mariano .
Why do atheists always accuse theists of being bigoted just because they disagree with them? Which dictionary says bigot - a theist that voices an opinion contrary to the opinion of an atheist? I'm not singling our jdhuey especially, it seems to happen all the time. Why is this not exposed as unacceptable?
I know, this is an old post, but Mariano, this has got to be the most stupid thing I've ever seen you print:Atheism offers no ultimate ethics nor justice what better reason to reject it?Ever hear of the Fallacy of Consequences of a belief?There is only ONE criteria that should be used when determining what is real or not. Does the idea or belief stand up to scrutiny. That's it. Not these constant emotional games that you're playing here.
Mariano,That has to be the most blatant example of taking a quote out of context that I have ever seen. It is especially galling because the quote taken out of context is in the post that you are responding to. If you don't know exactly what quote I am taking about it is this "profoundly important moral values have, for the atheist, no more impotance than, say a preference for Coke over Pepsi" by taking out the beginning of that sentence you completely change the meaning of what jdhuey said. And to respond what does have "universal weight", about the only thing I know of that does are laws of mathematics and physics and the other sciences. Religion offers no ultimate ethics or justice either, since those things end up being defined in the sense of religion by whatever is that "God" supposedly says and then how that is interpreted by human beings. All ethics are situational in nature, only being defined by how those ethics are derived, whther it is from the current understanding of what "God" says or how it affects the people around whoever is making the ethical decision.